b Parashat Shavua - sucot

  Main | Parashat Shavua French | Hebrew  
Dov Goldstein
Hitnachalut 11 Karnei Shomron
tel. 972-9-792 0838                     fax 972-9-792 0837
celphone: 972-52-424 305         tora@tora.co.il

logo 

Main >   Parashat Shavua
 Eretz_Hemdah




Hemdat Yamim Parashat Meketz 5764

Hemdat Yamim Parshat Mikeitz-Chanuka 2 Tevet 5764 ********************************************************* This edition of Hemdat Yamim is dedicated to the memory of R' Meir ben Yechezkel Shraga Brachfeld o.b.m and Yitzchak Eliezer Ben Avraham Mordechai Jacobson o.b.m ****************************************************************************************** Eretz Hemdah is the premier institution for training young rabbis to take the Israeli Rabbinate's rigorous Yadin Yadin examinations. Eretz Hemdah, with its distinctive blend of Religious Zionist philosophy and scholarship combined with community service, ensures that its graduates emerge with the finest training, the noblest motivations resulting in an exceptionally strong connection to Jewish communities worldwide. *************************************************************************************************************************** A Telling Drink The commentaries explain Yosef's psychological ploys against his brothers as a tactic to get them to do teshuva for the terrible sin they committed against him. This thesis explains many things but leaves a few points that are worthwhile to investigate. During the brothers' second trip to Egypt, the encounter with Yosef started on a conciliatory note. Yosef invited them to a festive meal to mark the occasion, and wine was served. The Torah relates, "they drank and got drunk with him" (Bereishit 43:34). Rashi comments that this was the first time that either Yosef or his brothers had drunk since Yosef had been sold as a slave. There are a couple of peculiarities here. First, why start drinking now? The brothers can be understood. They were not going to "make waves" with the temperamental Egyptian ruler. If he said, "Drink!" they would drink. But why did Yosef initiate the drinking, against his long kept practice? Rashi also does something strange in presenting this information. We should expect this idea to be brought on the word "vayishtu (they drank)," as Rashi would point out that this was the first drink in many years. Yet he makes his comments on the words, "they got drunk with him." Why? Perhaps one question answers the other. Yosef did not only want to make his brothers think about what they had done, but he wanted to know what they were thinking. He had already overheard them conjecture that their recent troubles had been Divine Retribution for their treatment of Yosef (ibid. 42:21). But Yosef wanted to know more. Had their consciences given them any trouble before calamity began befalling them? He devised a test based on a biological tendency. Those who do not regularly imbibe alcoholic beverages deal less efficiently with their effect than those who drink. So Yosef drank with them. As he had not drunk in 22 years, he knew that a moderate amount of wine, standard for a festive meal of nobility, would intoxicate him. If his brothers would get intoxicated at the same rate as he, he would know that they too had refrained from wine as a means of grieving for what they had done. Thus, Rashi points out on the words, "they became drunk together," that this must have been the first drink of wine in years for all of them. Indeed the intoxication was the proof of the idea. Yosef was known as, "the tzaddik." Indeed, he withstood the temptation thrust upon him by Potiphar's wife and, later, by the corrupt society of Egypt. There was no pleasure in the world that was beyond his reach, yet he would not even touch a bit of wine. But perhaps Yosef's greatest act of righteousness was his conviction not to carry out psychological warfare against his brothers any further than was needed for them to show their preparedness to accept and make amends for their betrayal of him. Our insight is one further indication of the steps he took to devise a serious, yet measured response to his brothers. He was then able to accept his years of slavery as a Divine Decree for the ultimate good of the family (ibid. 45:8(. *************************************************************************************************************************** P'ninat Mishpat- Control of Holy Places (based on B'sha'arei Beit Hadin, vol. II, pp. 345-360( Case: There is an ongoing series of deliberations and decisions regarding control of the operations at one of the prominent sites of kivrei tzaddikim (graves of well-known, righteous people). Instead of summarizing each of the proceedings, we will mention some of the principles that emanate from the series of responses. Summary of opinions: There are different types of hekdeshot (literally, holy institutions) that are prevalent in Eretz Yisrael. One refers to property acquired on behalf of a certain community of Jews (historically based on their country of origin) to be used for the religious and/or social needs of that group. In regard to such property, there are questions of rights and ownership that need to be addressed according to the regular rules of civil matters. A second type of hekdeshot is that which pertains to the entire Jewish people. Certainly age-old gravesites of our historic leaders, sages, and righteous do not belong to any one group, allowing them to control the site in order to make money or otherwise benefit from them. The rights that do exist are chezkat aputropsut (guardianship) over the sites. This is not a financial right but is an outgrowth of the concept that when one begins doing a mitzva or holding a position in regard to a mitzva, he is not to be removed without sufficient justification (mishna in Gittin 59; Shulchan Aruch, CM 149). The poskim added that simple justification is not sufficient to remove him, rather there must be significant grounds. It is hard to give exact guidelines for deciding what constitute such grounds, but we can borrow certain ideas from related cases. A guardian for orphans is to be removed when he is suspected of misappropriating their funds (Shulchan Aruch, CM 290:5) or neglecting their needs (Baer Heitev, ad loc.). The Ministry for Religious Affairs asked to have the present guardians removed for not maintaining the buildings at the site and misappropriating funds. But the former situation stemmed from damages incurred during the War of Independence [the ruling was issued in '52], and public funds had not been provided to make the necessary repairs. The latter claim had not, as yet, been substantiated. [Other claims are beyond our present scope]. Nevertheless, it is appropriate that the Ministry, with the approval of the Rabbinate, appoint two additional guardians to oversee the site and its operations and to see to it that the conditions at the site improve, according to the dignity befitting the great men who are buried there.There is no reason to accept the demand that the new guardians be of the same ethnic origin as those who are presently guardians. Only their qualifications are important. A recent, temporary ruling required the forming of a council consisting of a representative of each of the communities that claim control, with a chairman chosen by the local beit din. It also stressed that those running the site should not use it as a means of obtaining funds for institutions unrelated to the operation of the site. *************************************************************************************************************************** Moreshet Shaul (from the works of Hagaon Harav Shaul Yisraeli zt"l( The Obligation to Say Hallel and Light Candles on Chanuka (excerpts from Eretz Hemdah I, 4( ]In analyzing the halachic precedents on the question of instituting the saying of Hallel on Yom Ha'atzmaut, Rav Yisraeli examined the institutions of Purim and Chanuka. [ The gemara in Megilla (14a) says: "48 prophets prophesied ... and did not detract from the Torah, nor did they add to it except for the reading of the Megilla [on Purim]. What was their source [for adding the Megilla]? If upon going from slavery to freedom they sang, upon going from death to life all the more so." If not for this idea, it would have been forbidden to add on to the Torah in such a manner (Maharsha, ad loc.). Rashi (ad loc.) asks that the gemara should have mentioned the "new" mitzva of Chanuka lights. He answers that the institution of Chanuka was done after the period of the prophets. So how was it permitted? The Maharsha (ad loc.) explains that Chanuka too was based on derivations, from p'sukim in Parashat B'ha'alotcha. One should note that Rashi asked about the Chanuka lights, while the aforementioned source about Purim refers only to the saying of songs of praise. Thus, a different source was needed. The questions beg. What is the source for being able to say a full Hallel on Chanuka, and why did Rashi refer specifically to the Chanuka lights, not the Hallel? One can also ask about the gemara's kal vachomer. The base of the derivation is from the singing of praise upon leaving the bondage of Egypt, which itself was a decision of the prophets of that time (Turei Even). So who authorized the prophets of Moshe's time to institute it? One can deduce from the language of the prohibition against adding on to the Torah that it began only with the giving of the Torah, seven weeks after the Exodus and its songs of praise. As the Torah left unchallenged the institution to sing those songs, the concept of doing so in equivalent situations was confirmed. But if the practice was confirmed by the Torah, then why did the gemara consider it an addition of the prophets? This question brings us precisely to the answer to our previous questions. We asked why Rashi only raised the question of the Chanuka lights, not Hallel and what the source is for Hallel. Indeed, the saying of Hallel on Chanuka is a direct application of the songs of praise of Pesach. [We will have to forgo Rav Yisraeli's discussion on the question if that refers to Hallel on the first night of Pesach or Hallel or "Az Yashir" at the splitting of the sea.] But the reading of the Megilla on Purim, although sharing a conceptual basis with Hallel, was a new institution, which the prophets needed to derive. So too, lighting the Chanuka candles is a form of praising Hashem for the miracles he bestowed upon us. However, as it was a new form of accomplishing this goal, it required its own derivation. The Ritva explains that just as the earlier prophets applied the concept of Hallel and extended it to the reading of the Megilla, so too the later Rabbis created the Chanuka lights as an application of the concept of praising Hashem for His miracles. *************************************************************************************************************************** Ask the Rabbi Question: My three-year-old son mischievously turned off and back on the dining room lights on Shabbat. Were we allowed to continue eating in the room? Answer: Your question raises standard Shabbat questions, which we will address briefly, along with a rarely discussed question about melacha (forbidden work) done by a child on Shabbat. We will not discuss the contentious question of when, if ever, it is permitted to have a child do something on Shabbat that is forbidden for an adult (see Orach Chayim 343). The prohibition of receiving benefit from melacha done on Shabbat arises in the Talmud in two contexts. One is as a k'nas (injunction) on a Jew who violates Shabbat, so that he will not benefit or will even lose from desecrating it (see Ketubot 34a and Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chayim 318:1). The second is not to benefit from melacha done by a non-Jew on Shabbat on behalf of a Jew, even though the non-Jew did nothing wrong. Rashi (Beitza 24b) says that it is an intrinsic (rabbinic) problem of benefiting from the melacha of a non-Jew on Shabbat. Tosafot (ad loc.) explains it as a concern that if a Jew gets used to benefiting in such a way, he may come to ask the non-Jew to do the work for him in a forbidden manner. What about a child's melacha? No injunction is appropriate regarding a child, who is halachically no worse (and is likely better) than one who violates Shabbat accidentally, even if he has reached the age of chinuch (serious education). (We will leave that issue alone, as a three-year-old, even one who "knows" about Shabbat, is beneath the age of chinuch.) The question is only whether the prohibition on benefit, lest one come to ask the child to do melacha, applies. What do the sources say? The gemara (Yevamot 114a), in discussing whether one has to prevent a minor from doing what is an aveira for an adult, brings the following story. Someone lost keys in the public domain on Shabbat and was, thus, forbidden to retrieve them. Rabbi Pedat suggested that small children be taken to the area to play, so that they might find and retrieve the keys. Tosafot (Shabbat 122a) asks that, whether or not one can let a child take the keys or has to stop them, it should have been forbidden to benefit from the keys, as in a case that a non-Jew had retrieved them. Tosafot answers that it was permitted because the children brought the keys without having the needs of others in mind. (When non-Jews do melacha for themselves, Jews may benefit from it). The Magen Avraham (325:22) infers from here that if a child does melacha for someone else, it is forbidden to benefit from it. The Pri Megadim (ad loc.) explains that it is because of a fear that the adults will not think it is a big deal to ask the minor to do the melacha, which is forbidden (see Yevamot, ibid.). One leniency that can be implied from Tosafot is that if the child brings more than he needs, then we do not have to fear that the extra amount is considered for others, as we do by a non-Jew (see Magen Avraham. ibid. and commentaries(. Let's go back to your case. If your son turned the lights off and on in one act of mischief, then it was all done for his own purposes, and there is no problem of receiving benefit. But perhaps he shut them and, after regretting the situation that everyone was sitting in the dark, decided later to put them back on to improve the situation for his family. In that case, there should be a problem, because we look at the turning on as causing benefit for others, even if he hoped it would save him from punishment. However, without reviewing all the laws of benefit from melacha on Shabbat, let us recall one rule. Any use of a room that one could have had, even with difficulty, without the melacha is not considered forbidden benefit (Shemirat Shabbat K'hilchata 30:58). Most homes have enough light that, even if the dining room lights go off, it is possible to eat the meal. Thus, the only question was probably about reading, and it depends on the circumstances. Harav Shaul Israeli zt"l Founder and President Deans: Harav Yosef Carmel Harav Moshe Ehrenreich ERETZ HEMDAH 5 Ha-Mem Gimmel St. P.O.B 36236 Jerusalem 91360 Tel/Fax: 972-2-5371485 Email: eretzhem@netvision.net.il web-site: www.eretzhemdah.org American Friends of Eretz Hemdah Institutions c/o Olympian 8 South Michigan Ave. Suite 605 Chicago, IL 60603 USA Our Taxpayer ID#: 36-4265359